QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
|
|
- Pauline Powell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NO/S: MATTER TYPE: Balens v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2018] QCAT 297 MARK ANDREW BALENS (applicant) v MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (respondent) GAR DELIVERED ON: 3 September 2018 HEARING DATE: 6 August 2018 HEARD AT: DECISION OF: ORDERS: General administrative review matters Brisbane Member Allen The decision of the Moreton Bay Regional Council made on 22 February 2018 for the destruction of the dog Titan is set aside. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL where dog declared dangerous dog where history of non-compliance with requirements of declaration where dog seized whether discretion to issue destruction order in respect of dog should be exercised APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 97, s 118, s 127, s 131 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24 Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCATA 139 Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97 Applicant: Respondent: Self-represented D. MacKellar
2 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Balens is the owner of Titan, a male mastiff, who in 2016 was made subject to a dangerous dog declaration 1 by the Moreton Bay Regional Council. In January 2018 Titan Council officers seized Titan from Mr Balens property under a warrant 2 issued on the basis that the dog was evidence in regard to the commission of offences by Mr Balens. Several days later the Council issued a destruction order 3 in respect of Titan which decision was confirmed under internal review on 22 February Mr Balens has applied to the Tribunal for external review 4 of the destruction order. The law [2] The Tribunal when reviewing a decision stands in the shoes of and has all of the powers of the decision maker. 5 The Tribunal must hear and decide a review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and the purpose of the review is to make the correct and preferable decision. 6 The decision-maker s role is to use their best endeavours to help the Tribunal so that it can make the decision and must provide a written statement of reasons for the decision and any document or thing in the decision-maker s possession or control that may be relevant to the Tribunal s review of the decision. 7 The Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker, with directions the tribunal considers appropriate. 8 [3] The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) ( AM Act ) is the relevant legislation in respect of this matter. Under the AM Act a Council may declare a dog dangerous and if the dog is later seized by an authorised officer the Council may then make an order stating that the person proposes to destroy the dog 14 days after the order is served. 9 The notice is served on the registered owner of the dog who then has 14 days to make an application for internal review. The internal review decision in this case confirmed the original order and it is now for the Tribunal to decide the review. [4] There are no criteria set out in the AM Act in regard to the exercise of the discretion to make a destruction order under s 127 of the AM Act. The appeal tribunal has set out the considerations when exercising the discretion in Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council 10 as follows: [46] The Council s power to make the destruction order was based on s 127(4) of the AM Act which does not prescribe how the power to make a destruction order is to be exercised nor what factors the decision-maker must take into account. But open-ended discretions are not to be exercised at the whim of the 1 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (AM Act) s AM Act, s AM Act, s AM Act, s Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ( QCAT Act ), s QCAT Act, s QCAT Act, s QCAT Act, s AM Act, s [2017] QCATA 139.
3 3 decision-maker. The scope, purpose, and objects of the legislation must be taken into account to interpret the extent and ambit of discretion. [47] As stated in Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97 at [18]: It is clear that the AM Act is primarily directed towards the effective management and responsible ownership of dogs and that the destruction of a dog is a last resort. It is generally where the mechanisms in the Act for management fail, or are ineffective, that destruction arises. The essential question is whether the dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of other animals or to people, by attacking them or causing fear, to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog. [48] The Appeal Tribunal in Thomas referred to the derivation of the legislative intent of the Act from the purposes of the Act set out in s 3 and s 4 which states how those purposes are to be achieved. Section 3 refers to the purpose of effective management of regulated dogs and the promotion of responsible ownership of dogs. And s 4 refers to measures to achieve that, such as imposing obligations on regulated dog owners and imposing obligations on particular people to ensure dogs do not attack or cause fear. Declaration of Titan as a dangerous dog [5] Titan was declared a dangerous dog following an attack by him on a cat, Paddy, which had been tethered in the front yard of a neighbour, Mr Bellavar s house, which resulted in the death of the cat, Paddy. The attack occurred on 25 March 2016 while Mr Balens 11 stated that he was returning from a walk with Titan. He states that the dog was on a lead but it was provoked by the cat and Titan pulled the lead out of his hand and ran to the cat but the cat was unable to run away. Mr Balens considered that he took all reasonable steps to prevent Titan from going after the cat. He considered that the cat would have been able to run away if it had been loose. [6] Mr Bellavar the owner of Paddy reported the incident to the Council. Mr Bellavar in his statement 12 confirmed that the Paddy had been tethered in a harness in his front yard. He states that he heard a horrible noise from the front yard and that when he went out he observed Paddy rolling around on the grass and Mr Balens dragging Titan off his property. Paddy had been pulled out of his harness and died several minutes after the attack. Mr Bellavar says that when he went to Mr Balens to confront him about the attack Mr Balens blamed the fact that Paddy was tethered. As the attack occurred during the Easter weekend Mr Bellavar informed the Council of it several days later and that ultimately resulted in Titan being declared a dangerous dog. [7] Following an investigation the Council made a Proposed Regulated Dog Declaration on 5 July The notice gave Mr Balens the opportunity to make written representations as to why Titan should not be declared a dangerous dog. Mr Balens claims that he was not provided with the notice and therefore did not get the opportunity to make representations. The Council confirmed that the notice was sent to Mr Balens address. The Council made a regulated dog declaration Dangerous 11 Exhibit Exhibit AM Act, s 89.
4 4 Dog in respect of Titan on 18 August The documents accompanying this notice included an information notice which advised that Mr Balens was required to comply with the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog 15 in the attached Schedule 1 and that, should he fail to comply, he could be subject to a penalty notice in the amount of $914 and be issued with a compliance notice. He was also advised of his rights of internal and external review. Mr Balens did not take advantage of the rights of review, though he says he did not receive the advice from council in that regard. [8] The requirements in regard to a dog which is subject to a dangerous dog declaration are as follows: (a) Owner must ensure the relevant dog is desexed within 3 months; 16 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) A relevant dog must be implanted with a PPID and must, at all times, wear a collar with attached identification tag; A relevant dog must not be in place that is not the relevant place for the dog unless it is muzzled and under the effective control of someone who has the control of no more than 1 dog at the same time; An enclosure for a relevant dog must be maintained at or on the relevant place for the dog and the dog must, unless there is a reasonable excuse, be usually kept in the enclosure (there is also extensive list of requirements set out for the enclosure in the Act and its regulations); A sign, supplied by the Council, must be placed at or near each entrance to the relevant place notifying the public that a relevant dog is kept at the place; A relevant dog must not be kept at a place other the relevant place for the dog; and If a relevant person changes residential address, the person must give the Council notice of the person s new residential address within 7 days. [9] Mr Bellavar confirmed in his statement that he received notice from the Council of the dangerous dog declaration on 10 October 2016 and that he sent a letter to various neighbours advising them of that a dangerous dog declaration had been made in respect of Titan, the letter set out in summary the requirements that had to be met by Mr Balens as a result of the declaration. Non-compliance by Mr Balens [10] Mr Balens was issued with a compliance notice by the Council on 21 November 2016 ordering him to construct an enclosure that complies with the conditions for the keeping of a Regulated Dog dangerous by 1 December 2016, supply to Council a vet certificate that Titan has been de-sexed and supply to Council a vet certificate that lists the microchip number for Titan both by 16 December Mr Balens was advised if he failed to comply the Council may issue an infringement notice for $914 and or enter his property, seize Titan and place a destruction order on him and or take 14 AM Act, s AM Act, s 97, Schedule 1; Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 6, s AM Act, s 70.
5 5 legal action against him for a breach of the AM Act. I note that a penalty infringement notice was issued to Mr Balens by the Council on 13 April 2017 in the amount of $914. [11] Mr Balens was issued with a further compliance notice on 21 April 2017 requiring him to desex Titan by 5 May Another compliance notice was issued to Mr Balens on 10 October 2017 requiring him to construct an enclosure for Titan in accordance with the Schedule and the regulations, to ensure that Titan is usually kept within the enclosure, and that 24 hour contact details be engraved on the regulated dog identity tag on or before 24 October 2017, with a Council officer attending at 11am on 25 October [12] There have been several occasions following the dangerous dog declaration where Titan had been observed in the street by neighbours of Mr Balens. There was also an incident described which occurred after the attack on Mr Bellavar s cat but before the dangerous dog declaration. The neighbours were informed of the dangerous dog declaration and the requirements which Mr Balens had to meet in regard to Titan by letter from Mr Bellavar, who wished to ensure that Mr Balens met his obligations in regard to the dangerous dog declaration. [13] In particular, Mrs Richards 17 observed Titan in her front yard on 9 November She provided a statement with photos of Titan taken at the time. Mrs Richards noted that Titan was not muzzled or under the effective control of any person. Mrs Richards advised Mr Balens that the dog was loose by which time it had left her yard and moved to another street. Mrs Richards had informed Mr Bellavar and he then followed Titan to another house and took some phots of Titan at that house. Mr Balens attended at Mrs Richard s house to clean up a mess that Titan had left and then drove up to the street where Titan had gone. [14] Mrs Richards recounted another interaction with Mr Balens in regard to Titan which occurred on 17 January Mr Balens in his statement confirmed he was home that day although he did not confirm the identity of the dog in the photo produced by Council and said it was not his front yard. On that day Mrs Richards was taking her two dogs for a walk with her 13 year old son and two of his friends. On the return walk home Mrs Richards son expressed concern that Mr Balens was out the front working on an unregistered car and raised concerns that Titan would be outside with Mr Balens, and it was often unrestrained by any means. Mrs Richards said she reassured her son that the dog was not allowed to be out. [15] Mrs Richards further stated that when they came around the bend of their street they could see Mr Balens still working on the car and Mrs Richards son crossed to the other side of the street and told his friends who had the dogs to do the same. He then called out to Mr Balens Mark, is the dog restrained. Mr Balens answered No. Mrs Richards then observed Mr Balens walk over to a location. She says it was at this time that she saw Titan unrestrained and unmuzzled in the front yard. She continued to walk home and observed that Mr Balens was holding Titan by the collar. As Mrs Richards was walking towards her home she said if that dog touches my dogs its dead meat. Mr Balens became very angry and yelled expletives at her. He then threatened her son about balls hitting his cars. Mrs Richards observed the children becoming upset and shaken. Upon reaching her property Mrs Richards said to Mr Balens that 17 Exhibit 1.
6 6 I might just go inside and ring the Council about your dangerous dog not being restrained. After securing her house and reassuring the children Mrs Richards then rang the council to complain that Titan was not being kept in accordance with the dangerous dog declaration. Mrs Richards was advised by the Council on 18 January 2018 that they had seized Titan and that she should be vigilant in regard to retribution. She states that when she drove past Mr Balens house that afternoon she was subjected to verbal abuse and hand gestures by Mr Balens and that her family are concerned for their safety as a direct consequence of Mr Balens not adhering to the dangerous dog declaration. I note that in her evidence at the hearing Mrs Richards confirmed that Titan had not given her any reason for concern though she would be concerned if her small dogs were in the front yard. [16] Mr Bellavar in his statement confirmed that he had a discussion with Mrs Richards about Titan wandering on 9 November 2016 and that he had followed Titan to an address and taken photos of him. He also observed that Mr Balens located Titan and took him back to his property. Mr Bellavar stated that the Council was advised of the incident on 9 November 2016 and a Council officer attended at Mr Balens address and spoke to him. Mr Bellavar also stated that he had been threatened by Mr Balens on another day. Mr Bellavar confirmed that he had been advised by Mrs Richards of the incident on 17 January 2018 and that he was aware that as a result Titan was seized by Council. [17] The destruction order noted the history of Titan and Mr Balens interactions with the Council in regard to the AM Act and that, on 17 January following an investigation by Council, it was confirmed that Titan was outside of his enclosure and not under effective control. Ms Sharmaine Hunter, the Council Officer who made the original decision, provided oral evidence at the hearing. She stated that she had conducted the enclosure inspection in October 2017 and it had not been completed and that remained the case up until the date of seizure. She confirmed that as at the date of seizure Titan s registration had also not been paid. MS Hunter stated that she had advised Mr Balens that if he wished to dispute the destruction order he would need to build the enclosure. Submissions [18] At the hearing Mr Mackellar set out all of the requirements of the AM Act in regard to regulated dangerous dogs which the Council submitted Mr Balens had not met. In particular that Titan s enclosure did not meet requirements, that the dog was not usually in the enclosure and not muzzled and under effective control when in public. There were also issues raised about whether the dog had been desexed and had a PPID inserted. It appeared from the evidence including statements from Mr Balens and the photographic evidence that the dog had been de-sexed and the PPID was inserted. At the time of seizure though the photographic evidence indicated that the enclosure that existed divided off Mr Balens back yard and it was accessible to the street by a two way garage. Mr Balens provided photos of the enclosure that he had built with assistance from a friend during the period since the seizure. Mr Mackellar was given an opportunity to review the photos and he generally confirmed the enclosure complied with the requirements of the AM Act. There were issues though with the type of mesh used which was not child proof and which would require re-meshing with narrow mesh so that children could not climb up the gate and gain access. There was also a need to ensure that Titan was not able to dig his way out of the enclosure.
7 7 [19] Mr Balens acknowledged at the hearing that he had been non-compliant with the requirements relating to the dangerous dog declaration. He confirmed that he was under an onus to meet the conditions and he had a lack of funds which contributed to his inability to meet the requirements of the AM Act. Including paying for Titans registration for the current period. He confirmed that he was happy to comply with the MA Act and that he had done everything he could. [20] Mr Mackellar for the Council submitted that: Titan was a regulated dangerous dog and that there were numerous breaches of the AM Act committed by Mr Balens; the destruction order was issued due to the non-compliance and the risk to the community; the Council was responsible to ensure that the community was kept safe and, in this case, due to Mr Balens non-compliance, that required Titan be subject to a destruction order. Discussion [21] The cases cited above make it clear that a destruction order is a last resort and only to be used where the danger posed by the dog can only be satisfactorily dealt with by the making of a destruction order. In this case there was clearly an incident in 2016 which rightly resulted in Titan being declared a dangerous dog and Mr Balens has had great difficulty complying with the requirements of the AM Act. On several occasions Titan has been allowed to wander away from his property and it has only been following the making of the destruction order that an enclosure which is capable of being compliant has been constructed. Mr Balens has a poor relationship with his neighbours and the issues in regard to his dog are exacerbated by his negative interactions with his neighbours. [22] The events of 17 January 2018 highlight this. Titan was in Mr Balens yard and unrestrained. Mr Balens, when requested, ensured that he did restrain the dog and there was no incident in regard to the dog. The dog was in Mr Balens yard, which is the relevant place under the AM Act and while it was not in its enclosure it is clear that it was under Mr Balens control as he was able to restrain it when asked. The incident was heightened by the interaction between Mr Balens and his neighbour. [23] Mr Balens is very attached to Titan and his doctor indicated he would be adversely affected if Titan was to be destroyed. Mr Balens is therefore motivated to ensure that he complies with the AM Act. He understands that he is under scrutiny from his neighbours who will vigilantly ensure that if he is non-complaint the Council will be notified. Of course the purpose of the Act is to ensure the effective management of regulated dogs by imposing obligations on regulated dog owners. Once Titan has been declared dangerous, Mr Balens neighbours should be reassured that the requirements of the regulated dog regime will be met to ensure community safety. [24] I consider that Mr Balens has now evinced an intention to comply with the dangerous dog requirements of the AM Act by in particular his construction of the enclosure for Titan, which only requires some small modification to be fully compliant. He also understands that he must keep the dog in the enclosure unless it is under effective control and that when the dog is in public it must be muzzled. He stated that he had been training Titan to wear the muzzle before the dog was seized. [25] I am not satisfied that the discretion should be exercised to disuse a destruction order in respect of Titan as I believe that Mr Balens will be able to ensure that he abides by
8 8 the requirements of the dangerous dog declaration. I therefore set aside the order of the Council. [26] I note that there are still some compliance issues in regard to the enclosure and payment of registration fees and that the Council will need to satisfy itself that the requirements of the dangerous dog declaration have been met before Titan may be released AM Act, s 131(3)(d).
General administrative review matters
CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NUMBER: MATTER TYPE: Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCAT 281 Tammy Bradshaw (Applicant) v Moreton Bay Regional Council (Respondent) GAR136-17 General administrative
More informationCompanion Animals Amendment Act 2013 No 86
New South Wales Companion Animals Amendment Act 2013 No 86 Contents 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Schedule 2 Amendment of Companion Animals Regulation 2008 12 Schedule 3 Amendment of Criminal Procedure
More information5. COMPLIANCE. Policy 5.5. Companions Animals Policy. Version 2
5. COMPLIANCE Policy 5.5 Companions Animals Policy Version 2 5. COMPLIANCE 5.5 COMPANIONS ANIMALS POLICY OBJECTIVE: Council s objectives in relation to the management of companion animals are to: Manage
More informationThe Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth
The Corporation of the By-law 2002-045 (Consolidated as amended) DANGEROUS DOGS BY-LAW A by-law to provide for the muzzling of dogs declared dangerous in the. Consolidation Amendment No. 1 By-law No. 2005-075
More informationQ1 The effectiveness of the Act in reducing the number of out of control dogs/dog attacks in Scotland.
PAPLS/S5/18/COD/20 PUBLIC AUDIT AND POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010 CALL FOR EVIDENCE SUBMISSION FROM National Dog Warden Association Scotland. Q1 The effectiveness
More informationDOG CONTROL POLICY 2016
DOG CONTROL POLICY 2016 Contents Why do we need a Dog Control Policy? 1 Legislation 2 Obligations of dog owners 3 General Health and Welfare 3 Registration of dogs 3 Micro-chipping of dogs 3 Working dogs
More informationActing Inspections and Enforcement Manager Mark Vincent, Team Leader Animal Control
10. DOG REGISTRATION FEES Appendix 2 General Manager responsible: General Manager Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941 8549 Officer responsible: Author: PURPOSE OF REPORT Acting Inspections and Enforcement
More information2016 No. 58 ANIMALS. The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016
S C O T T I S H S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2016 No. 58 ANIMALS ANIMAL WELFARE The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 Made - - - - 28th January 2016 Coming into force - - 29th
More informationCITY OF MUSKEGO CHAPTER 13 - LICENSING AND REGULATION OF ANIMALS (Ord. # )
CITY OF MUSKEGO CHAPTER 13 - LICENSING AND REGULATION OF ANIMALS (Ord. #647-05-18-89) 13.01 DOGS - (Ord. #647-5-18-89) (1) Statutes Adopted. The current and future provisions of Ch. 174, Wis. Stats., defining
More informationGIVE ME SHELTER. South Australia's new dog and cat laws: a guide for shelter and rescue organisations
GIVE ME SHELTER South Australia's new dog and cat laws: a guide for shelter and rescue organisations Information for Animal Shelters and Rescue Organisations (Called Shelters in this paper) Please note,
More informationDOGS (JERSEY) LAW 1961
DOGS (JERSEY) LAW 1961 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2018 This is a revised edition of the law Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961 Arrangement DOGS (JERSEY) LAW 1961 Arrangement Article PART 1 5
More informationThe Dog and Cat Management Board. Policy and Procedure for the training of dogs subject to a dangerous dog order
The Dog and Cat Management Board Policy and Procedure for the training of dogs subject to a dangerous dog order Description: A policy and procedure for the training of dogs subject to a dangerous dog order
More information93.02 DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
93.02 DANGEROUS ANIMALS. (A) Attack by an animal. It shall be unlawful for any person's animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present.
More informationDangerous Dogs and Texas Law
Dangerous Dogs and Texas Law ANDREW W. HAGEN JUDGE, MUNICIPAL COURT OF UVALDE 2015-2016 Texas Animal Statutes Health and Safety Code, Title 10, Health and Safety of Animals Sections 821 through 829 Chapter
More informationASSEMBLY, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 212th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED DECEMBER 6, 2007
ASSEMBLY, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED DECEMBER, 00 Sponsored by: Assemblyman NEIL M. COHEN District 0 (Union) Assemblyman PATRICK J. DIEGNAN, JR. District (Middlesex) SYNOPSIS Revises
More informationArticle VIII. Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Vicious Dogs
Sec. 7-53. Purpose. Article VIII. Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Vicious Dogs Within the county of Santa Barbara there are potentially dangerous and vicious dogs that have become a serious and widespread
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY BY-LAW NO
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY BY-LAW NO. 2005-121 Being a by-law to licence dogs and to prohibit the running of dogs at large and to cany out the operation of an animal shelter and pound.
More informationDOG CONTROL POLICY. Effective from 28 August 2018
DOG CONTROL POLICY Effective from 28 August 2018 This Policy outlines how Invercargill City Council s Animal Services Department will fulfil its responsibility under the Dog Control Act 1996. This Policy
More information(3) BODILY INJURY means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
3-1-1 3-1-1 DEFINITIONS. In this title: (1) ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY means an animal control office owned, operated, leased or contracted by the city with authority over the area in which the dog is kept.
More informationA1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15)
A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15) 1 Introduction 1.1 For as long as human beings continue to interact with dogs, there will be incidents of dog bites. However, the frequency
More informationTITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL
10-1 TITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER 1. IN GENERAL. 2. DOGS. 3. VICIOUS DOGS. CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL SECTION 10-101. Running at large prohibited. 10-102. Keeping near a residence or business restricted.
More information2015 No. 138 DOGS, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2015 No. 138 DOGS, ENGLAND AND WALES The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 Made - - - - 4th February 2015 Laid before Parliament 10th
More informationCITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 411
CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 411 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 8 OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS GOVERNING DOGS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY OF STERLING
More informationDog and Cat Management Board. Approval of Greyhound Muzzle Exemptions
Dog and Cat Management Board Approval of Greyhound Muzzle Exemptions Document Control: Title Type Creator Author/s Consultation Date Released Review Date 27 May 2016 Reviewer Version 1 Description Keywords
More informationCONTROL OF DOGS BYLAW
1. INTRODUCTION CONTROL OF DOGS BYLAW Pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 2002 and amendments, together with the Dog Control Act 1996 and amendments, the Impounding Act 1955
More informationChapter 506. Dangerous and Vicious Animals Adopted July 21, 2008
Chapter 506. Dangerous and Vicious Animals Adopted July 21, 2008 506.01 KEEPING DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS ANIMALS. No person shall keep, harbor or own any dangerous or vicious animal within the City of Lakewood,
More informationAssistance Animal Policy
Assistance Animal Policy Montana State University Billings Housing and Residential Life ASSISTANCE ANIMAL POLICY Montana State University Billings affirms its commitment to nondiscrimination on the basis
More informationR.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.16
Français Dog Owners Liability Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.16 Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2007 to the e-laws currency date. Last amendment: 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 13. Skip Table of Contents
More informationCITY OF MEADOW LAKE BYLAW #18/2012 DOG BYLAW
CITY OF MEADOW LAKE BYLAW #18/2012 DOG BYLAW A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF MEADOW LAKE TO REGISTER, LICENSE, REGULATE, RESTRAIN AND IMPOUND DOGS CITED AS THE DOG BYLAW. The Council of the City of Meadow Lake,
More informationCITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 8 OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT NEW REGULATIONS GOVERNING DOGS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY OF STERLING
More informationSUMMARY: An ordinance amending the Washoe County Code by revising provisions relating to dangerous dogs. BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
SUMMARY: An ordinance amending the Washoe County Code by revising provisions relating to dangerous dogs. BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WASHOE COUNTY CODE BY CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF
More informationNeighbourhood Manager, Neighbourhoods Business Manager, Neighbourhoods Services Manager, Care and Support Business Manager, Care and Support
Pets Policy Summary: Version: 1.5 This policy sets out Genesis approach to dealing with pets. It applies to all customers that live in properties owned or managed by Genesis. Effective from: 31 March 2016
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF WARFIELD BYLAW 703
THE CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF WARFIELD BYLAW 703 A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF WARFIELD TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. WHEREAS Council may regulate, prohibit and
More informationThese Regulations may be cited as the City of Corner Brook Animal Regulations.
The City of Comer Brook Animal Regulations PURSUANT to the powers vested in it under section 263, 264, 280.1, 280.2 and 280.4 of the City of Corner Brook Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. C-15, as amended, the Newfoundland
More information1 SB By Senators Livingston and Scofield. 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18.
1 SB232 2 191591-3 3 By Senators Livingston and Scofield 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18 Page 0 1 SB232 2 3 4 ENROLLED, An Act, 5 Relating to dogs; to create Emily's
More informationTOWN OF LANIGAN BYLAW 2/2004
BYLAW 2/2004 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF LANIGAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF DANGEROUS DOGS AND THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF ALL OTHER DOGS INCLUDING LICENSING, RUNNING AT LARGE AND IMPOUNDING. The Council
More informationGUIDELINES FOR AFFILIATES WHEN DEALING WITH AGGRESSIVE DOGS
GUIDELINES FOR AFFILIATES WHEN DEALING WITH AGGRESSIVE DOGS Due to the increased awareness of the general public to dog attacks there has been a necessity for Dogs Tasmania to implement Regulations to
More informationWaitomo District Dog Control Bylaw 2015
Waitomo District Dog Control Bylaw 2015 Contents 1. SHORT TITLE... 3 2. PURPOSE... 3 3. CONTROL OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES... 3 4. DOG EXERCISE AREAS... 3 5. PROHIBITED AREAS... 3 6. PREVENTION OF PUBLIC
More informationCounty Board of County Commissioners to provide and maintain for the residents
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-44 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE ANIMALS ARE DANGEROUS; REGULATING DANGEROUS AND RABID DOGS; AUTHORIZING EUTHANIZATION
More information2015 No. 108 ANIMALS, ENGLAND. The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2015 No. 108 ANIMALS, ENGLAND ANIMAL WELFARE The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 Approved by both Houses of Parliament Made - - - - 2nd February
More information1 INTRODUCTION 2 GENERAL
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL POLICY AND PRACTICES IN RELATION TO THE CONTROL OF DOGS FOR THE YEAR 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 1 INTRODUCTION The Council applies the
More informationCYPRESS COUNTY BYLAW 2016/09 A BYLAW OF CYPRESS COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING AND REGULATING DOGS.
CYPRESS COUNTY BYLAW 2016/09 A BYLAW OF CYPRESS COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING AND REGULATING DOGS. WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to restrain and regulate the running
More informationAN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 405 OF THE CITY OF RICE (REGULATING DOGS & CATS)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 405 OF THE CITY OF RICE (REGULATING DOGS & CATS) The City Council of the City of Rice, Minnesota, hereby ordains that Section 405 (Dogs and Cats) of Chapter IV (Public Safety)
More informationTITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL
0- TITLE 0 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER. IN GENERAL. 2. DOGS. CHAPTER IN GENERAL SECTION 0-0. Running at large prohibited. 0-02. Keeping near a residence or business restricted. 0-03. Pen or enclosure to be
More informationReport to ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & REGULATIONS Committee for decision
18 364 Title: Section: Prepared by: Annual Report Dog Control Policy and Practices 1 July 2017 30 June 2018 Environmental Services & Protection Gary McKenzie (Acting Enforcement Manager) Meeting Date:
More informationTOWN OF GORHAM ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
TOWN OF GORHAM ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Adopted - April 7, 2009 Effective - May 7, 2009 Amended March 2, 2010 1 TOWN OF GORHAM ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Section 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this ordinance
More informationThis article shall be referred to as "Angel's Law" and may sometimes be referred to herein as "this ordinance."
ARTICLE 17: ANGEL'S LAW Section 9-17-1 Findings and intent 9-17-2 Short title 9-17-3 Definitions 9-17-4 Potentially dangerous dog 9-17-5 Dangerous dog 9-17-6 Irresponsible owners 9-17-7 Hearings 9-17-99
More informationUW-Green Bay Emotional Support Animal Policy (University Housing) OP
Amended by: Vice-Chancellor-Student Affairs Date: Eric Arneson, Vice-Chancellor Approved by Cabinet August 2, 2016 Amended February 27, 2017 UW-Green Bay Emotional Support Animal Policy (University Housing)
More informationREPORT ON QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL S DOG CONTROL POLICIES AND PRACTICES Financial year
REPORT ON QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL S DOG CONTROL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 2011 2012 Financial year Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires that a territorial authority report each financial
More informationSUMMARY: An ordinance amending the Washoe County Code by revising provisions relating to dangerous dogs. BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
SUMMARY: An ordinance amending the Washoe County Code by revising provisions relating to dangerous dogs. BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WASHOE COUNTY CODE BY CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF
More informationMINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE Sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee
TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE Sitting as the Vicious Dog Appeal Committee APPEAL OF A NOTICE TO MUZZLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BY-LAW 1999-135-RE AS AMENDED HEARD ON THE 16
More informationBY-LAW NUMBER A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE MUZZLING OF VICIOUS DOGS
''i''. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2000-04 A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE MUZZLING OF VICIOUS DOGS WHEREAS Section 210, subsection 10, of the Ontario Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990,
More informationORDINANCE NO RESOLUTION NO APPROVING A DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE Chisago County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 07-3 RESOLUTION NO. 070620-4 APPROVING A DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE Chisago County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS AND THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
More informationTOWN OF LUMSDEN BYLAW NO A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROLLING, REGULATING AND IMPOUNDING OF DOGS.
TOWN OF LUMSDEN BYLAW NO 11-2016 A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROLLING, REGULATING AND IMPOUNDING OF DOGS. The Council of the Town of Lumsden in the Province of Saskatchewan enacts as follows:
More informationDOUGLAS COUNTY CANINE RESCUE FOSTER AGREEMENT
DOUGLAS COUNTY CANINE RESCUE FOSTER AGREEMENT NAME: DATE: D.C.C.R s first and foremost concern is for each and every animal s wellbeing. We must insure every animal s individual needs are met and will
More informationCommunity. Dogs, cats, neighbours and you. Your guide to the laws about owning a dog or cat in Victoria
Community Dogs, cats, neighbours and you Your guide to the laws about owning a dog or cat in Victoria Your guide to the laws about owning a dog or cat in Victoria This guide has been designed for owners
More informationDog and Cat Management Act 1995
Version: 1.7.2017 South Australia Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 An Act to provide for the management of dogs and cats; and for other purposes. Contents Part 1 Preliminary 1 Short title 3 Objects 4 Interpretation
More informationCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER Being a By-law for the Control and Licensing of Dogs
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER 2012-103 Being a By-law for the Control and Licensing of Dogs WHEREAS The Municipal Act, R.S.O., 2001 section 103 authorizes the Council of a municipality
More informationCITY OF HUMBOLDT BYLAW NO. 29/2013
CITY OF HUMBOLDT BYLAW NO. 29/2013 A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF HUMBOLDT TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF DOGS AND CATS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS the City of Humboldt is empowered by Section
More informationC. Penalty: Penalty for failure to secure said license shall be as established by Council resolution for the entire year. (Ord.
5-2-1 5-2-1 CHAPTER 2 DOGS SECTION: 5-2-1: License Required; Exemption 5-2-2: License Fee 5-2-3: Term Of License 5-2-4: Publication Of Notice 5-2-5: Application For License 5-2-6: Restrictions And Prohibited
More informationCITY OF PITT MEADOWS Dog Control Bylaw
Dog Control Bylaw Bylaw No. 2735 and amendments thereto CONSOLIDATED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY This is a consolidation of the bylaws listed below. The amending bylaws have been consolidated with the original
More informationOFFICE OF ACCOMMODATION AND INCLUSION Policy/Procedures for Service Animals
OFFICE OF ACCOMMODATION AND INCLUSION Policy/Procedures for Service Animals Introduction The University of Findlay is committed to providing accommodations to an otherwise qualified individual with a disability
More informationVILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09
VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO 407/09 BEING A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF ROSEMARY, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, REGULATING, AND CONFINEMENT OF DOGS WHEREAS,
More informationBY-LAW A By-law of the town of Rothesay Respecting Animal Control, Enacted Under the Municipalities Act, Section 96(1), R.S.N.B. 1973, c.
BY-LAW 01-12 A By-law of the town of Rothesay Respecting Animal Control, Enacted Under the Municipalities Act, Section 96(1), R.S.N.B. 1973, c.m-22 The Council of the town of Rothesay Duly Assembled Enacts
More informationTHOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT DANGEROUS DOG CONTROL BYLAW NO. 2383
0 THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT DANGEROUS DOG CONTROL BYLAW NO. 2383 A BYLAW TO REGULATE THE CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOGS IN ELECTORAL AREAS "1", "M", "N" and "P" OF THE THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT
More informationSUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO A Bylaw to regulate the keeping of dogs within the Keats Island Dog Control Service Area
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 691 A Bylaw to regulate the keeping of dogs within the Keats Island Dog Control Service Area WHEREAS the Sunshine Coast Regional District has established a service
More informationBY-LAW 48 DOG CONTROL BY-LAW
BY-LAW 48 DOG CONTROL BY-LAW Title 1. This By-Law shall be known and may be cited as the Dog Control By-Law and is enacted to provide for the orderly control of dogs in the County of Inverness. 2. This
More informationORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ALBANY MUNICIPAL CODE (AMC) 6.18, "DANGEROUS DOGS," AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
ORDINANCE NO. 5769 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ALBANY MUNICIPAL CODE (AMC) 6.18, "DANGEROUS DOGS," AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, current ordinances concerning the classification and disposition of dangerous
More informationBERMUDA DOGS ACT : 28
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA 2008 : 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 4A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11A 11B 11C 11D 11E 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18A 19 20 21 Short title Interpretation Duty of the Minister Ownership of
More informationMUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF ANTIGONISH. By-law Being a By-Law Respecting the Responsible Ownership of Dogs
WHEREAS Section 172(1) of the Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides Municipalities with the power to make by-laws, for Municipal purposes, respecting the health, well-being, safety and protection
More informationPit Bull Dog Licensing By-law
Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law PH-12 Consolidated October 17, 2017 As Amended by: By-law No. Date Passed at Council PH-12-06001 December 5, 2005 PH-12-06002 November 6, 2006 PH-12-17003 October 17, 2017
More informationCITY OF SOUTHGATE CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY ORDINANCE 18-15
CITY OF SOUTHGATE CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY ORDINANCE 18-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHGATE, KENTUCKY REPEALING AND AMENDING SECTIONS 91.01, 91.03, 91.10, 91.11, AND 91.99 OF THE CITY S CODE OF ORDINANCES;
More informationSECTION I. Fitchburg State: Service Animal and Assistance Animal Policy FITCHBURG STATE UNIVERSITY SERVICE ANIMAL AND ASSISTANCE ANIMAL POLICY
1 FITCHBURG STATE UNIVERSITY SERVICE ANIMAL AND ASSISTANCE ANIMAL POLICY Fitchburg State University ( the University ) recognizes the importance of Service Animals and Assistance Animals to individuals
More informationLEGISLATURE
00 00 LEGISLATURE 00 AN ACT to amend 0. () (j); and to create. and. () (a). of the statutes; relating to: regulation of persons who sell dogs or operate animal shelters or animal control facilities, granting
More informationDemi s Animal Rescue Foster Agreement (Dog)
Demi s Animal Rescue Foster Agreement (Dog) Date Animal s Name: Breed: Sex: Weight: Age: Microchip ID: Notes: The parties agree that the foster shall abide by the following conditions: 1. (Name) hereinafter
More informationCHAPTER 604 TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 604 TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Adopted 02/16/2000 Amended 05/19/2004 Amended 04/20/2011 Amended 05/07/2014 604-1 Purpose... 1 604-2 Definitions... 1 1. ABANDONED ANIMAL:... 1
More informationTitle 6. Animals* Chapters: 6.05 Dangerous Dogs 6-1. * For nuisance provisions regarding animals, see LMC , , and
Title 6 Animals* Chapters: 6.05 Dangerous Dogs * For nuisance provisions regarding animals, see LMC 8.10.040, 8.10.050, and 8.10.180. 6-1 Lyons Municipal Code 6.05.020 Chapter 6.05 Dangerous Dogs Sections:
More informationThis bylaw may be cited as the Dog Control Bylaw.
WESTLOCK COUNTY PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BYLAW NO. 16-2012 BEING A BYLAW of Westlock County in the Province of Alberta for the purpose of regulating and controlling of dogs within the municipal boundaries of
More informationAPPENDIX B TOWN OF CLINTON DOG ORDINANCE
APPENDIX B TOWN OF CLINTON DOG ORDINANCE TOWN OF CLINTON DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 7, 2000 REVISED JUNE 8, 2004 SECTION l. PURPOSE: This ordinance is adopted in the exercise of municipal home
More informationService Animal Procedure, Student and Community Procedure
STOCKTON UNIVERSITY PROCEDURE Service Animal Procedure, Student and Community Procedure Procedure Administrator: Chief Officer for Institutional Diversity and Equity Authority: Americans with Disabilities
More informationBe it enacted, by the Council of the Town of Wolfville under the authority of Sections 172 and 175 of the Municipal Government Act, as amended:
DOG CONTROL BYLAW Be it enacted, by the Council of the Town of Wolfville under the authority of Sections 172 and 175 of the Municipal Government Act, as amended: 1 Title This Bylaw is titled and referred
More informationDog Control Policy and Practices 2017/18
Dog Control Policy and Practices 2017/18 2017/18 Annual Report 1. The Dog Control Act Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to report annually on: the administration
More informationSec Mandatory spaying and neutering. a. 1. Requirement. No person may own, keep, or harbor an unaltered and unspayed dog or cat in
Sec. 6.08.120 Mandatory spaying and neutering. a. 1. Requirement. No person may own, keep, or harbor an unaltered and unspayed dog or cat in violation of this section. An owner or custodian of an unaltered
More information1 SB By Senators Livingston and Scofield. 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18.
1 SB232 2 190459-2 3 By Senators Livingston and Scofield 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18 Page 0 1 190459-2:n:01/25/2018:KBH/tgw LSA2018-479R1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SYNOPSIS:
More informationSelected City Codes Regulating Livestock and Fowl. for the City of Ethridge Tennessee
Selected City Codes Regulating Livestock and Fowl for the City of Ethridge Tennessee Alcoa 10-115. Keeping or possessing livestock. It is unlawful for any person to keep or possess livestock, including
More informationRegistered/Unregistered Dogs
Introduction and Overview Council delivers its Animal Control services in-house, with funding of the dog control component being a mixture of user pays (dog registration fees) and rates, currently set
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ADELAIDE METCALFE
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ADELAIDE METCALFE BY-LAW #36-2009 Being a By-Law for prohibiting or regulating the running at large of dogs in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe WHEREAS the Municipal
More informationSouth Australia Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (with Amendments)
South Australia Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (with Amendments) For ease of reading and understanding this copy of the Dog and Cat Management Act has been adjusted to show the amendments as proglammated
More informationANIMAL CONTROL BY-LAW
ANIMAL CONTROL BY-LAW TITLE CHAPTER 70 1. This By-law is entitled the. DEFINITIONS 2. In this By-Law: (1) Animal Control Officer means a special constable or by-law enforcement officer appointed pursuant
More informationCounty of San Mateo Planning and Building Department REGULATIONS FOR KENNELS/CATTERIES
County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department REGULATIONS FOR KENNELS/CATTERIES COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE TITLE 6 ANIMALS CHAPTER 6.20 KENNELS/CATTERIES SECTION 6.20.010. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS.
More informationSERVICE ANIMAL AND ASSISTANCE ANIMAL POLICY. Framingham State University Disability Services Center for Academic Success and Achievement
SERVICE ANIMAL AND ASSISTANCE ANIMAL POLICY Framingham State University Disability Services Center for Academic Success and Achievement In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, public institutions
More informationPLEASE NOTE. authority of the Queen s Printer for the province should be consulted to determine the authoritative statement of the law.
c t DOG ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 23, 2017. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationCARTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL DOG CONTROL BYLAW 1997
CARTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL DOG CONTROL BYLAW 199 The bylaw was made on 1 st August 199 and has been subject to a review on 18 th September 200 and adopted on 26 th September 200. The bylaw with amendments
More informationP. O. Box 5531 Breckenridge, CO Phone: Fax: Website:
P. O. Box 5531 Breckenridge, CO 80424 Phone: 970-389-8324 Fax: 303-648-4678 Email: arrcolorado@gmail.com Website: www.arrcolorado.org Microchip # Rabies tag # Pet s Name: Breed: Color and Description:
More informationUW-Green Bay Assistance Animal Policy (University Housing) OP
Approved By Cabinet: August 2, 2016 Amended as to format, not substance February 27, 2017 UW-Green Bay Assistance Animal Policy (University Housing) OP-42-16-1 Policy Statement It is the policy of the
More informationORDINANCE NO. 91 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE LICENSING OF DOGS & CATS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROWNTON
ORDINANCE NO. 91 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE LICENSING OF DOGS & CATS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROWNTON The City Council of the City of Brownton, Minnesota, does ordain as follows: Section 1. The city Council
More informationBY- LAW 39 of 2008 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ST. MARYS
BY- LAW 39 of 2008 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ST. MARYS BEING a By-law for prohibiting and regulating certain animals, the keeping of dogs within the municipality, for restricting the number of
More informationTITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL 1 CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL
10-1 TITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL 1 CHAPTER 1. IN GENERAL. 2. DOGS AND CATS. CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL SECTION 10-101. Running at large prohibited. 10-102. Keeping near a residence or business restricted. 10-103.
More informationCHAPTER 2.20 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DANGEROUS DOGS
CHAPTER 2.20 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DANGEROUS DOGS SECTIONS: 2.20.010 DEFINITIONS 2.20.020 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS--DOGS WITHOUT PERMIT PROHIBITED 2.20.030 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS--DECLARATION
More informationARTICLE FIVE -- ANIMAL CONTROL
[Article Five was extensively revised by Ordinance 15-11-012L, effective January 1, 2016] ARTICLE FIVE -- ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 05.01.010 PURPOSE This Article shall be
More information